Plenty of evidence? Great! This is what we’ve all been waiting for. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, and some bold font for emphasis. Because we don’t like to embarrass people (unless they’re politicians or otherwise in the public eye), we’ll omit the writer’s name and city. Okay, here we go:
Evolution is an implausible theory based on unproved assumptions. The evidence for both evolution and creation is the same; it’s all around us. Which tenet of faith is the most logical?
M’god — what a beginning! We’ve got an “implausible theory,” based on “unproved assumptions,” and it’s a “tenet of faith.” We assume that’s in contrast to creationism, which is entirely plausible, rests only on proven assumptions, and isn’t faith-based at all. Okay, now we’re ready to proceed:
Consider age: We make assumptions about a person’s age by our perception of looks, clothing, manners, etc. It’s the same with most things, but what kind of life has the person lived? Have they been sick or maybe had some plastic surgery? There are also variables in nature that can affect the perception of age.
Ah yes — that explains it. The Earth is really young, but it’s been leading a terrible life, doesn’t get enough exercise, has bad eating habits, and therefore its isotopes are all run down. That’s why it appears to be billions of years old. Let’s read on:
Until the 1500s, the consensus of opinion was Earth was only about 6,000 years old. It was Charles Lyell, a lawyer, who made the theory of uniformitarianism popular and convinced people the world was old. Most true modern geologists do not believe that theory.
Aaaargh!! It was James Hutton (1726 – 1797), not Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875), who first proposed the principle uniformitarianism. However, it may indeed be a fact that no true geologist thinks that way — depending, of course, on one’s version of The Truth™.
This is a great letter, so far. But can the letter-writer maintain this same level of quality all the way through? We continue:
The Institute for Creation Research sent samples of coal to several different totally independent testing laboratories, from different layers and locations. The results came back all the same ages.
Powerful evidence from a reliable source! We can’t be certain, but he’s probably referring to this article from 2003, posted at the ICR website: Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages. Yeah, that’s gotta be it. That same article claims that Lyell is responsible for the idea of uniformitarianism. Here’s more from today’s letter:
There are two volcanic flows in the Grand Canyon. The top one consistently ages older than the one several rock layers deeper.
We haven’t bothered to look that one up. Debunking it is your assignment, dear reader. Your work is probably already done by this item at the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims. Moving along:
Creationists have no problem with micro evolution; that’s just a term for genetic adaptation within a kind. Dogs will always be dogs; people will always be people and so on.
Yes, dogs will always be dogs. Just as wolves will always be wolves. Oh, wait — well, never mind. Skipping to the end, this is the letter-writer’s final blow against evolution:
If you are going to put your faith in evolution, you will be disagreeing with the likes of Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Newton, Charles Boyle, Gregor Mendel and many other creation-believing scientists who developed the fields of science we study today.
We’ve dealt with most of those names before. But … Charles Boyle? That’s a new one. Wikipedia lists several men by that name, but the likeliest one is Charles Boyle, 4th Earl of Orrery. He was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1706. Darwin didn’t publish his theory until 1859, so there’s not much we need to say — about that Charles Boyle or any other. Perhaps he meant Charles Boyer? We’ll probably never know.
So there you are, dear reader. The letter promised us evidence for creationism. Now you’ve seen it. The rest is up to you.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.